Ken added to (wiki) section 6 the commonalities he saw
across use cases. Doing this is consistent with XG approach
outlined in the XG
charter. (commonalities = things in common across use cases,
common themes, common problems)

Ken: still weakness in report on conclusions we see and
what we would recommend from conclusions.

Ken: do people agree with observations? What can we say
about them?

Mitch: use cases were not in terms of providers and
consumers

Ken: yes, but these were my observations as how things
broke down when I looked individualy at use cases.

Claudia: really it is possible to catch the notion of
provider and consumer in most of the use cases, i.e. Discovery, Wine
Sweetness.

Peter: I agree with provider and consumer

Peter: common is the need of annotation, uncertainty
annotation which will improve automatic processing.
In my Task_oriented_uncertainty_ontology.pdf is consumer and provider
in discussion to uncertainty ontology.

Ken: property descriptors could be unclear or
incomplete for what consumer would want

Ken: is list in 6.1 accurate, complete enough, help us
draw conclusions?

Trevor: complete given our use cases but not very
digestible in this form

Ken: not meaning to leave in this form but an initial
capture of ideas to bring forward

Action 2
Trevor to look at bullets in current 6.1, reorganize if
necessary, put in text form, and expand conclusions in 6.4

Ken: how can we best proceed to finishing work? Need
input for conclusions and recommendations.

Claudia: I think that we need only to lift from
sections 6 and 7. Most of the work is done.

Ken: I think we have most of the raw material but still
need processing of that material. Not yet obvious what benefits from
standardization and what needs to be captured in a standard. Could say
standard would indicate methodology and values related to that
methodology. People could use in indicated methodology or differently
if understand how. Could indicate more than one type of uncertainty if
that applicable.

Claudia: in my opinion, one of the main aspect that an
uncertainty standard representation can give us is the (semi-)automatic
managing of uncertainty that is one of the most challenging points.

Peter: Uncertainty Ontology can be used by provider to
annotate, consumer has improved automated processing.

Ken: Peter, good to add to conclusions. Could you add
[in Conclusions section 6 on wiki]?

[Some confusion because wiki isn't numbered same way as
draft report]

Action 4 Ken
to modify wiki section 6 so align with number in latest draft

Claudia: In my opinion one of the most important aspect
for standardizing uncertainty representation is the possibility to
manage uncertainty in a (semi-)automatic way. In my opinion this is the
most important value added that we can have with uncertainty
representation and stsandardization and I think that it is also one of
the most challenging point.

Peter: I agree with Claudia. That is why I wanted to
have refined UO to give grasp of it.

Ken: Peter, looking with UO to capture enough to see
concepts without details of how to assign values. At this point, let's
make sure we have concepts down. People who follow with syntax can give
specifics on how assigning values is done.

Peter: OK be happy to contribute to details. Understand
in a continuation of XG.

Action 5
Claudia to include thoughts on standardization into sections 6 and/or 7